Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00287/C Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00287/C Applicant : Mr Francis Edward Garnet-Ore Proposal : Change of use from a veterinary practice to offices. Site Address : Ballastrang Castletown Road Ballaglonney Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1EU
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.04.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal would be at odds with those policies that specifically seek to direct office development to existing centres and would result in a piecemeal of smaller office use within the countryside that deteriorates the town and village vitality and viability contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 9, General Policy 3 (c) and (g), Environment Policies 1 and 2, Environment Policy 16 (a) and (e), Paragraph 9.3.3, Business Policy 7(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. Planning history provides evidence of other non-office uses being accepted at this site and which would help to maintain the future use and upkeep of the building without harm to town or village centres. The veterinary use has not be demonstrated as being redundant nor that there aren’t other more reasonable and appropriate uses for this building in this countryside before an office use comes forward and this is at odds with Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 9, General Policy 3 (c) and (g), Environment Policies 1 and 2, Environment Policy 16 (a) and (e), Paragraph 9.3.3, Business Policy 7(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The unsustainable location of the site will increase demand for private car use and it is not been made clear whether sufficient parking is truly available for the office use without compromise to neighbouring properties or without adversely impacting the shared access lane or highway safety and is considered to fail Strategic Policy 1(c), Strategic Policy 10, Environment Policy 16 (d), Paragraph 9.3.3, Business Policy 8, and Transport Policies 1, 4, and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00287/C Page 2 of 6
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site forms part of an existing stone built two storey building situated at Ballastrang Farm, Douglas Road, Malew. Ballastrang Farm is situated west of the main road just south of the Fairy Bridge and is accessed by a shared access lane.
1.2 The existing building is currently divided into two parts; a small tourist unit on one side and a veterinary clinic on the other.
1.3 The veterinary clinic is split over two floors with an x-ray room, surgical ward, prep room, reception area and veterinary office space on the first floor. Toilet, kitchen and shower facility are split across both floors.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application proposes the change of use of the veterinary clinic to offices.
2.2 No external alterations are proposed.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been subject to a number of previous planning applications, the most relevant in the assessment of the current application are: o PA 96/00500/B for the conversion of the existing barn to a learning centre and tourist accommodation - approved o PA 17/01124/C for the change of use from a learning centre to a veterinary clinic - approved
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 and the Area Plan for the South 2013 (APS). The site is also within an area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) on the 1982 Plan. The site is not recognised as being at any flood risk and is not within any conservation area.
4.2 In terms of Strategic Plan policy the following are considered relevant: o Strategic Policy 1 - make best and efficient use of sites including underused buildings o Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 - new development located in existing town centres, unless in line with GP3 o Strategic Policy 5 - new development to make positive contribution o Strategic Policy 9 - all new offices must be sited within existing centres and on land zoned o Strategic Policy 10 - new development located to promote integrated transport network o General Policy 2 - general standards towards acceptable development o General Policy 3 - exceptions to development in countryside o Environment Policy 1 - protection of the countryside. Adversely affecting development not permitted unless there is an overriding national need. o Environment Policy 2 - protection of AHLV from harm, unless the development is essential
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00287/C Page 3 of 6
o Environment Policy 16 - conversion of rural buildings for tourist use or small scale industrial/commercial use subject to criteria conditions including impact on vitality and viability of existing settlement services. o Business Policy 1: The growth of employment opportunities to be encourage so long as accord with the policies in the plan o Paragraphs 9.3.3 and 9.3.4 - office development in town centres and what exceptions have been considered o Business Policy 7: New office floor space located within town and village centres unless in buildings of architectural and historic interest and office use would be the only or most appropriate way of securing its future. o Business Policy 8: new office parking provided in accordance with standards o Community Policies 7 and 11 - reduce chance of criminal activity and spread of fire o Transport Policies 1, 4 and 7 - located close to existing infrastructure, designed to be capable of accommodating vehicle and pedestrian journeys and parking provided in accordance with standards. o Appendix 7 - Out of town offices 1 space for every 15 square metres of nett floor space.
4.3 In addition to the above the site also falls within an area on the APS the site recognised as being an area of Incised Slopes (D14) where the APS Written Statement indicates that the "overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities". The key landscape views listed below harmonise in part with EP2 of the IOMSP: i. To protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views. ii. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting. iii. Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing. iv. Protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by the conservation of the rural character of the adjacent landscape.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no objection (04/04/2024) .
5.2 The DOI Highway Services - Do not oppose (18/03/2024) no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the parking and access is acceptable for the proposals.
5.3 Comments were also sought from Manx Utilities but nothing received at the time of writing the report 18/04/2024.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are a number of matters to assess as part of the current application: i. General Principle ii. Impact of Proposed Office Use - town centres, future use and overriding need iii. Amenity Impact - neighbours iv. Transport and Highway Safety Impact
6.2 i) General Principle 6.2.1 Strategic Policy 1 outlines support for the re-use of underused buildings and making efficient use of sites. Environment Policy 16 also supports the conversion of rural buildings for commercial use provided they're of sufficient architectural or historic interest, no longer required for their original purpose and the new use would not impact the vitality and viability of town centres. Strategic Policy 9 states that all new office development must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00287/C Page 4 of 6
consideration Business Policies 7 and 8. Business Policy 7 reaffirms that office development should be located in town centres but offers exceptions in respect of business headquarters and "in buildings of acknowledged architectural or historic interest for which office use represents the only or most appropriate practicable and economic way of securing future use, renovation and maintenance".
6.2.2 Taking into consideration that the existing rural barn has previously been approved for conversion, it is accepted that there is some level of interest in having its fabric retained. So in principle it is accepted that an alternative use to the building could be considered and that the test would fall to the remaining parts of the policy testing in understanding if the proposed office use would impact on the vitality and viability of town centres, whether office use is the only or most appropriate way to secure the buildings future use or whether there are any other over-riding or national needs to have the office in this location as to set aside the policy test.
6.3 ii) Impact of Proposed Office Use - town centres, future use and overriding need 6.3.1 Established policies within the IOMSP seek to direct all new development to existing settlements and development will only be accepted within the countryside if it fits within any of those tests in GP3. Parts (c) and (g) are the only potential exceptions that this proposal could be considered against and these relate to previously developed land and development of overriding national need.
6.3.2 In the case of this application there are no external works proposed and so the physical state of the building is not to change and no new or adverse visual impact beyond the existing situation, and there is perhaps a level of comings and goings expected which would not be so dissimilar to the existing veterinary use, however the proposal has not been provided with any justification or evidence of a reduced situation impact on the environment nor has it been explained that the existing veterinary use is in fact redundant failing part (c) and nor has it been evidenced that the office use in this location is of any over-riding or national need to warrant setting aside the presumptions against development in the countryside and therefore failing GP3 and this weighs against the proposal.
6.3.3 Strategic Policy 9 is clear that all new office development is to be within existing town and village centres however Business Policy 7 and Environment Policy 16 allow some degree of flexibility to re-use of existing rural buildings subject to conditions. In this case the proposal would continue to re-use an existing rural building which weighs in favour, and while it could be argued by the applicant that the office would not be of such a scale to impact the town or village centres, however it is the ad hoc approval of such smaller schemes that results in an evolution of piece meal development in the countryside that slowly eats away at the success of the town and village centres and it is apparent from the planning history in this case that there are others ways of securing the future use of the building without impacting on the vitality an viability of those centres. This failing of BP7 and EP16 weighs against the proposal.
6.4 iii) Amenity impact on neighbours 6.4.1 The submitted information indicates that the nearest neighbouring property is also within the blue line under ownership of the applicant and so likely already accepting of the proposal.
6.4.2 There is also already a level activity at the site associated with the approved veterinary use and changing to an office use would likely have a similar level of activity would retain a degree of activity and so in terms of direct amenity impact on the neighbouring properties and their living conditions this might not be so far removed as to have any significant adverse impacts as to warrant a refusal in its own respect and so this weighing in favour of the application.
6.5 iv) Transport and Highway Safety
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00287/C Page 5 of 6
6.5.1 Part of the reasoning for having new development directed to town and village centres is to ensure sustainable development as well as making sure any new offices are accessible to all members of the community, staff and visitors alike. In this case the site is outside of any settlement and although on an arterial route which is served by local bus services, the site is not easily accessible on foot nor by bicycle this likely increase the demand for private car in order to access the site.
6.5.2 The application information indicates that there are 8 parking spaces although it is unknown if this is solely for the proposed office or whether there is a reliance on these spaces by adjoining tourist use and neighbouring dwelling.
6.5.3 Parking standards of the IOMSP requires 1 space per 15sq m of nett floor space. The nett floor area calculates approx. 120sq m which equates to the need for 8 parking spaces, but there is a lack of clarity on the plans as to whether all of the 8 spaces can be safely provided without detriment to surrounding properties and without impacting on the safety of shared access route by overspill onto the lane. This unknown parking situation weights against the proposal.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst there are some policies that support a reuse of older rural buildings and perhaps the amenity impact on the neighbours in this case would not be so unobjectionable, it is the nature of the proposed office use being at odds with those policies that specifically seek to direct office development to existing town and villages in the interest of sustainable development objectives and in maintaining town and village vitality and viability. While perhaps the office development is not of such significant scale compared to a much larger business office headquarters, it is the piecemeal of smaller office schemes that deteriorates the town and village centres success, even more so in this case minded that the original or veterinary use has not be demonstrated as being redundant and that there is evidence of other non-office uses being accepted here which would help to maintain the future use and upkeep of the building and those uses not impacting on the wider countryside environment. The unsustainable location of the site will also increase demand for private car use and it is not been made clear whether sufficient parking is truly available for the office use without compromise to neighbouring properties or without adversely impact the shared access lane or highway safety.
7.2 The application is considered to fail Strategic Policy 1(c), Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 9, Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 3 (c) and (g), Environment Policies 1 and 2, Environment Policy 16 (a) and (e), Paragraph 9.3.3, Business Policy 7(b), Business Policy 8, and Transport Policies 1, 4, and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00287/C Page 6 of 6
o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 18.04.2024
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Acting Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/ customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal